(07-21-2014, 08:43 PM)Aya Wrote: In more seriousness...
The demands on an alignment system really depend upon the setting, and the intent of the campaign being played (which are shaped but not pre-determined by the game and setting themselves).
I have been critical of the DnD Alignment system in a few posts, but in reality I think their alignment system fits the typical play of the game very well (and the simplified version of 4th Edition, fits it just as well too). When a game is largely focused on hack-and-slash, and the tug and battle between good and evil, then clear demarcation lines become not only valuable, but sometimes necessary to keep the flow of action and story clean and crisp.
In a world where the hosts of good and evil fight it out in person, and through mortal champions, those caught in between the two poles and aligned with neither bear a classification of their own: "neutral" serves this role handily, while I think the authors of the game take too much effort to try to carve out an idea of "neutral" philosophy, the alignments themselves serve a crucial and necessary purpose.
Where this begins to break down is when campaigns move away from the black-and-white, away from the over-arching story of good and evil and into territory where personal belief, susceptibility, and to where the very real line between belief and conviction is tested. The DnD alignments are, in a sense, a sort of "loyalty", and cannot fill out in any great detail the actual philosophy of those who bear them. In one sense you can always expand upon a character's beliefs and driving philosophy, but almost inevitably this will introduce complexity that belies the nine traditional alignments and make it difficult to pin a character to one, as must be done for game mechanic purposes.
Because of that tension, and the incompleteness of these alignments, I generally prefer free-form alignment. Character's actions and decisions will have their ramifications, in most campaigns doing bad things tends to have a way of coming back on those who do them, without need of an alignment system. It also pulls the internal conflict for those characters who feel the very real tug between doing what's best for themselves, and doing what they believe to be the right thing into the forefront much more effectively. While a paladin who feels a pull toward vigilantism, or ending a potential future threat before it can become more powerful, or even the very human pull of forbidden lust, and this can provide excellent drama as a result, it often feels pinched by game-mechanic effects that the strict alignment system carries with it, while a free-form alignment system both makes the transgressions more likely to be committed, and their eventual ramifications more subtle (and potentially more interesting).
In the end, though, there really is nothing in any alignment system that cannot be dealt with by good GMs, and good players. No matter how strict, no matter how free, no matter how important or trivial, those who craft their characters and make their decisions, and those who control the world in which the character exists, can mold their stories how they wish, massaging mechanics if and when necessary. In that sense, every alignment system is just as flexible as it needs to be. (Which, in the end, may make my entire post rather uninteresting)
You really need to keep in mind that every alignment system - regardless of the system you are looking at - is created with the idea in mind that the GM/DM/Storyteller will be making the ultimate call as to whether something causes an alignment shift. Â As such, there has to be wiggle room and things left undefined, because every GM is different.
I find that the more expanded information on D&D alignments actually provides a really nice framework within which I can build a character's story. Â Sometimes having absolutes isn't a bad thing. Â Sometimes it can make for a more interesting story. Â
![[Image: hFalP38.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/hFalP38.jpg)
